At a scheduling conference held on January 31st, the attorneys of DFRF Enterprises defendants Wanderley Dalman, Gaspar C. Jesus and Eduardo N. Da Silva, informed the court they ‘
could not locate or communicate with their clients
‘.

All three defendants have filed outstanding motions to dismiss, which the court gave until February 28th to either withdraw or renew.

On February 28th all three motions to dismiss were renewed, despite the attorneys admitting they still haven’t located or communicated with their clients.

Whether there’s a bit of winkwink, nudgenudge going on here or the DFRF Enterprises defendants are working in good faith, I can’t say.

The SEC has objected to the renewed motions to dismiss.

The regulator argues that not knowing where their clients are and/or being unable to communicate with them,

effectively makes it impossible for the lawyers to represent those defendants going forward.

The SEC also reiterates the motions should be dismissed because

the Commission has alleged plausible securities fraud and unregistered offering claims against those three defendants.

The SEC alleges that Dalman, Jesus and Da Silva worked closely with owner Daniel Filho to promote DFRF Enterprises in Massachusetts.

While Filho was in Massachusetts, Dalman and Jesus introduced him to prospective investors, accompanied him to meetings with prospective investors, met with prospective investors without him, and sometimes collected the investors’ money in the form of cash or checks.

In August 2014, Da Silva joined Filho on one of his trips to Massachusetts to meet with prospective investors.

Da Silva was officially credited as DFRF Enterprises’ General Manager.

The trio also appeared in official DFRF Enterprises marketing videos.

The SEC’s opposition was filed on March 14th. A decision on the motion remains pending.

Update 13th September 2019 – 
All three motions to dismiss were
denied
on July 31st.

🤖 Quick Answer

What is the status of DFRF Enterprises defendants in the SEC lawsuit?
Three DFRF Enterprises defendants have renewed motions to dismiss despite their attorneys being unable to locate or communicate with them since January 31st. The SEC has objected to these renewed motions, challenging the defendants' strategy in the ongoing litigation.

Why did the defendants' attorneys renew motions to dismiss without client contact?
The attorneys renewed the motions by the February 28th court deadline despite having no communication with their clients since the January 31st scheduling conference. The circumstances surrounding this action remain ambiguous regarding defendant intent and attorney conduct.

What is the SEC's position on the defendants' renewed motions?
The Securities and Exchange Commission objected to all three renewed motions to dismiss, arguing that defendants' inability to locate clients does not justify procedural delays or dismissal requests in the enforcement action.

🔗 Related Articles

- SEC files for default judgment against remaining DFRF defendants
- Alex Jones and InfoWars sign up as Jeunesse distributors?
- Axiome Review: AXM token Dubai Ponzi scheme
- GSPartners gets BehindMLM censored in… the Ukraine?
- Swiss Gold Global Review v2.0: Securities and recruitment